HomeMy WebLinkAboutSDP201800082 Review Comments Appeal to BOS 2019-02-05 (4) 1
County of Albemarle
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road,
Charlottesville, VA, 22902
Phone 434-296-5832 Fax 434-972-4126
Memorandum
To: Justin Shimp
From: Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Division: Planning
Date: February 5, 2019
Subject: SDP201800082 Oak Hill Convenience Store – Final Site Plan
The County of Albemarle Planning Division will recommend approval of the plan referenced above once the following
comments have been satisfactorily addressed (The following comments are those that have been identified at this time.
Additional comments or conditions may be added or eliminated based on further review.): [Each comment is preceded by
the applicable reference, which is to the Subdivision/Zoning Ordinances unless otherwise specified.]
1. [35.1] Fees. The public notification fee of $215 was not paid prior to the SRC meeting. Please pay the fee prior to any
further review/action of the plan. Additionally, the applicant paid an incorrect application fee of $752; however, no
preapplication plan has been approved for this site. Rather the true application fee is $1,290 + $0.16/SF nonresidential
structure. Prior to action ensure the correct fees are paid, otherwise the plan will be denied. Final: Comment
addressed.
2. [32.5.2(j), 32.5.2(k)] Existing and Proposed Sewer Facilities. The plan fails to depict the existing and proposed sewer
facilities. Per conversations with the applicant they plan to utilize existing septic system to serve the use. Provide a
note on the plans to this affect. Also, on the plans depict the location and the extent of the primary and reserve
drainfields. Prior to final site plan VDH shall approve the septic system to ensure it is adequate for the uses.
Final: Comment partially addressed, pending VDH approval. VDH has requested a capacity assessment by a
professional engineer be submitted for their review. Rev 1. VDH has approved the site plan.
If VDH considers the addition of gas pumps to cause an increase in the sewer capacity requirements of the use and the
existing system needs to be upgraded or expanded. The modified system shall be located on the C-1 zoning of the
property. As the drainfields for the commercial use must be located on the C-1 portion of the property because the use
and accessory use is only permitted in the C-1 zoning district and not in the residential zoning. Final: Comment still
relevant pending VDH approval. Rev 1. VDH has approved the site plan.
3. [32.5.2(j), 32.5.2(k)] Existing and Proposed Water Facilities. The plan fails to depict the proposed water facilities
serving the use. Per conversations with the applicant they are utilizing public water to serve the use, and have been
connected for a few months. Provide a note on the plans to this affect. Depict the location of the water lines and the
connections. Depict and label all off site and onsite easements for the water connection. ACSA approval shall be
required prior to final site plan approval. Also, on the plans depict and label all wells on this lot which serve the mobile
homes. Final: Comment addressed.
4. [5.1.20] Sale of Petroleum Products. No storage tanks, including underground tanks shall be located closer than 100’
feet from any lot line when the site is served by well. The commercial use is served by public water, thus the 100’
setback to property lines is not triggered; however, the existing mobile homes (residential uses), on the same lot are
served by well. Staff is concerned with possible contamination of these citizens drinking water due to potential spills
and runoff from the pumps. It is recommended that the underground storage tank be relocated on the other side of the
fuel canopy to provide the equivalent 100’ buffer to the remaining mobile homes on the property. Final: Comment
addressed.
5. [21.7(C)] Buffer Zone Adjacent to Residential Districts. The property is split zoned and grading is proposed within the
20’ undisturbed buffer between the residential and the commercial zoning. This is not permitted, as no construction
activity including grading or clearing of vegetation shall occur closer than 20 feet to any residential district.
2
Additionally, the adjacent residentially zoned property (TMP 76-52P) is required to be given a 20 foot undisturbed
buffer area. It is important to note that disturbance of the buffer zone is not allowed even for the purpose of screening.
In order for required screening to be planted in the undisturbed buffer area a special exception shall be requested and
approved by the BOS prior to final site plan approval. Final: Comment addressed.
6. [4.20] Parking Setback. The 5 parallel parking spaces in front of the building do not meet minimum parking setbacks
from the right-of-way and shall be removed. While it is understood these spaces are existing, they are not previously
approved parking spaces depicted on an approved site plan, nor are they existing in this same capacity or arrangement.
As such they are not permitted to remain. Final: Comment addressed by dedicating the frontage and the area of
these spaces to VDOT for the R/W, they are now on street spaces.
7. [32.5.2(n)] Label the extent of the public right-of-way. Label the prescriptive right-of-way. Per conversations at SRC
the applicant seeks right-of-way dedication. If this is the case, prior to final site plan approval a right-of-way dedication
plat shall be submitted, reviewed, and approved. Final: Comment still relevant. Please submit a right-of-way
dedication plat and application for County review. Rev 1. Easement plat SUB201900005 has been submitted and
is under review. Comment still relevant.
8. [32.5.2(b), 4.12.16(c)] Information for Proposed Use. Provide a parking schedule along with calculations of required
parking, including the maximum amount required and the amount provided. The information provided on the site plan
was crossed out by the applicant on all review copies and was not reviewed at this time. Also, provide square footages
of existing buildings. Final: Comment addressed.
9. [32.5.2(p), 32.7.9.7(a)(1)&(2) & 32.7.9.7(d)] Landscaping. Provide a complete landscape plan that meets all
requirements of Section 32.7.9 with the Final Site Plan. Final: Comment addressed; however, ARB has requested
additional landscaping.
10. [4.20] Setbacks. Include labels to the visual setbacks on the site plan; rather than just on the existing conditions sheet.
Final: Comment addressed.
11. [Comment] Provide directional arrows for the entrances and throughout the site. Final: Comment addressed.
12. [4.12.15(g)] Parking Areas. Provide and label curb and gutters in the parking areas and along travelways.
Final: Comment addressed.
13. [32.5.2(n)] Information on the proposed paving material types for all walkways, access ways and parking lots.
Final: Comment addressed.
14. [32.5.2(j)] If there are any existing water, wastewater, or storm drainage systems on the property show the location and
size of each. Also provide the deed book and page references for any and all existing water, wastewater or storm
drainage systems easements that are located on the property. Final: Comment addressed.
15. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. Provide the present uses of all abutting parcels. Final: Comment addressed.
16. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. The TMP listed in the title of the site plan is correct, but the TMP provided under
“source of title” block on sheet 1 is incorrect. Revise. Final: Comment addressed.
17. [32.5.2(a)] General Information. The magisterial district listed in the title of the site plan is correct, but incorrect in the
Magisterial District block on sheet 1. The magisterial district is the Samuel Miller District. Revise. Final: Comment
addressed.
18. [32.5.2(n)] Proposed Improvements. Indicate the height of the gas canopy structure. Does the site propose to have a
loading space? If so, depict and label the location and dimension of the loading space. Final: Comment addressed.
19. [32.5.2(d)] Topography. Depict and label all managed slopes onsite. Additionally, provide topography 50’ beyond all
property lines and zoning lines. Final: Comment addressed.
20. [4.12.19] Dumpster Pad. Depict the location and design of the dumpster pad. Additionally, dumpster pads shall be
screened per Section 32.7.9 and where applicable section 30.6. Final: Comment addressed.
3
21. [32.5.2(l)] Provide the location of any existing or proposed utilities and utility easements including telephone, cable,
electric and gas. Indicate the deed book and page reference for all exiting utility easements located on the property.
Final: Comment addressed.
22. [32.5.2(n)] Outdoor lighting information including a photometric plan and location, description, and photograph or
diagram of each type of outdoor luminaire [Sec. 32.7.8 & Sec. 4.17]. If there will be any external lighting fixtures a
photometric plan will be required for Final Site Plan approval. In addition to meeting all lighting requirements a
standard lighting note will be required. Final: Comment addressed.
23. [32.5.2(n)] If there is to be a sign for the proposed use, on the final site plan depict and label the sign location.
(Depicting the sign on the final site plan is not approval of the sign location or type). Final: Comment addressed.
24. [32.5.2(n)] Existing and Proposed Utilities. On the landscape plan depict, label, and dimension all utilities/ utility
easements. Provide all existing easements with deed book page reference numbers. Final: Comment addressed.
25. [32.7.2.1] Each entrance onto any public street shall be designed and constructed as required by the standards of the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT). VDOT approval of the entrance to the site shall be required prior to
final site plan approval. See the attached VDOT comments. Final: Comment still relevant. Rev 1. Comment still
relevant.
26. [32.6] A site plan meeting all the requirements of section 32.6 of Chapter 18 of the Code. Final: Comment addressed.
27. [Recommendation] This property is within the Monticello Viewshed. It is suggested the applicant consult with the
Thomas Jefferson Foundation to discuss any potential visual impact of the project. Final: Comment acknowledged.
28. [Comment] The lighting plan appears to have an error in the lighting types. Pole lighting is listed on the plans as C but
in the cutsheets is labeled B. Canopy lighting is listed as B on the plan but in the cutsheet is labeled C. Revise.
Rev 1. Comment addressed.
29. [Comment] Depict the location of the tree protective fencing. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
30. [32.6.2(h)] Signature Panel. Add a signature line for the Health Department. Rev 1. Comment addressed.
31. [32.5.2(i), 32.7.1.1)] Prior to final site plan approval the right-of-way dedication and easement plat will need to be
reviewed and approved on a subdivision plat. The Deed Book Page Reference information shall be provided on the
final site plan. Rev 1. Easement plat SUB201900005 has been submitted and is under review. Comment still
relevant.
32. [Comment] Prior to final site plan approval a VSMP shall be approved. Rev 1. WPO2018-49 deemed approvable on
1-14-19 and is pending purchase of nutrient credits.
ARB - Margaret Maliszewski
Approved
Engineering – John Anderson
Requested changes – see attached
VDOT –Adam Moore
Requested changes – see attached
VDH – Alan Mazurowski
Approved – see attached
Fire and Rescue – Shawn Maddox
No objection
ACSA – Richard Nelson
Previous approval
4
E911 – Andrew Walker
Previous approval
Building Inspections – Mike Dellinger
Previous approval
Sincerely,
Christopher Perez
Senior Planner, Planning Division
COUNTY OF ALBEMARLE
Department of Community Development
401 McIntire Road, Room 227
Charlottesville, Virginia 22902-4596
Phone (434) 296-5832 Fax (434) 972-4126
Site Plan review
Project: Oak Hill Convenience Store – Final Site Plan
Plan preparer: Justin Shimp, PE, Shimp Engineering – 201 E. Main St., Suite M
Charlottesville, VA 22902 [justin@shimp-engineering.com ]
Owner or rep.: SIDDH LLC, 1096 Foxvale Lane, Charlottesville, VA 22902-8255
Plan received date: 30 Oct 2018
(Rev. 1) 17 Dec 2018
Date of comments: 30 Nov 2018
(Rev. 1) 23 Jan 2019
Reviewer: John Anderson
Project Coordinator: Christopher Perez
SDP2018-00082
Initial Site Plan comments, below (FSP, below =FSP Initial):
1. Provide offsite topography that extends at least fifty (50) feet outside the site (18-32.5.2.d.). (FSP)
Addressed.
2. Show and label blue line (watercourse) feature shown on County GIS system. Identify as ditch, intermittent
stream, or perennial stream. Provide date of Engineer’s site visit to identify and evaluate characteristics of
this existing topographic drainage feature (18-32.5.2.f.). (FSP) Addressed.
3. Provide sight lines on SR 875 (Country Green Road) for design speed limit (18 -32.5.2.i.). (FSP) Partially
addressed. As follow-up: Show sight lines on C4 (Site Plan) rather than Grading and Utility plan.
Recommend inset detail at 1” =50’ or 60’ scale to preserve C4 current scale of 1” =20’. (Rev. 1)
Addressed.
4. Show existing and proposed sewer and drainage facilities (18-32.5.2.j./k.). (FSP) Addressed.
5. Show existing and proposed utilities and easements (18-32.5.2.l.). (FSP) Addressed.
6. Improvements (18-32.5.2.n.) (FSP) Addressed, or withdrawn..
a. Provide pavement design based on ADT. (FSP) Comment withdrawn.
b. Provide pavement section details. (FSP) Addressed.
c. Provide dimensions of proposed fuel storage tanks. (FSP) Addressed.
d. Specify pavement design for pavement above fuel storage tanks. (FSP) Addressed.
7. Provide wheel stops for the twelve (12) 9’ × 18’ parking spaces. (FSP) Comment withdrawn.
8. Indicate area to be dedicated as SWM Facility Easement (18-32.5.2.o.). (FSP) Addressed.
9. Indicate areas to be permanent drainage easements (18-32.5.2.o.). (FSP) Not addressed. Ref. 18-
32.7.4.2.a. Also, please see WPO201800049 SWM Plan comment 5.u. (7-Nov 2018). (Rev. 1)
Addressed. SUB201900005, Easement Plat, is under review.
Engineering Review Comments
Page 2 of 3
10. Provide curb and gutter for parking lot (18-4.12.15.g.). (FSP) Not addressed. Ref. 18-4.12.15.g. Gutter is
required. Replace CG-2 with CG-6. Provide CG-6 detail. (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response:
‘While curb is required for this site, gutter is only required “where necessary to control or direct stormwater
runoff” (18.4.12.15.g.). Gutter is necessary for very flat parking lots (around 1% slope). With a parking lot
slope of 2-3%, curbs are sufficient. Gutter was added in one area near the parallel parking where the grade
is rather flat.’ Engineering accepts this design approach.
11. Show preserved and managed steep slopes. (FSP) Addressed.
12. State building code requires building permits when a wall retains three (3) or more feet of unbalanced fill.
Albemarle County Building Inspections Division requires engineered design when wall is four (4) or more
feet in height, in addition to a building permit. Please submit engineered design /building permit
application, if needed. (FSP) Not addressed. Applicant response: ‘The design is in process and will be
submitted with the Final Site Plan at a later time.’ Engineering acknowledges Applicant intent to furnish
design with the FSP at a later time. (Rev. 1) In progress. Applicant response: ‘Retaining wall design is in
progress.’
13. Proposed slopes steeper than 3:1 require landscaping vegetation hardier than grass. Provide acceptable
landscaping. Ref. ACDSM, Sec. 8, Grading, A.2 (p. 22 of .PDF; Link:
http://www.albemarle.org/upload/images/forms_center/departments/community_development/forms/design_standards_
manual/Albemarle_County_Design_Standards_Manual_2015-04-25_draft.pdf ). (FSP) Addressed.
14. Provide complete drainage design. Provide calculations, plan and profile. (FSP) Partially addressed. As
follow-up: Revise LD-229, Storm Drain Design Computations table, C8, to include A3 to A2 (31.47 LF
15” HDPE pipe). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
15. Provide curb and gutter. Evaluate inlet spread and capacity. (FSP) Partially addressed. As follow-up:
Provide gutter. Revise LD-204 to include gutter cross-slope. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
16. Provide sight distance easements, as needed. (FSP) Addressed. Sight distance easement/s are not required.
17. VSMP Approval is required. (FSP) In process. WPO201800049 is under review; most recent review
comments: 7-Nov 2018. (Rev. 1) Addressed. WPO201800049, ‘Approved (1/14/19) pending purchase of
0.32 lb./yr. nutrient credits.’ (CV comment)
18. Required for VSMP Approval:
a. VSMP Plan meeting requirements of 17-401; (FSP) In process: see #17, above.
b. SWM Facility Maintenance Agreement recordation; (FSP) Applicant acknowledges.
c. SWM and Permanent Drainage Easement recordation. (FSP) Applicant acknowledges.
d. Provide minimum distance from release point of (detained) stormwater flow and minimum distance
from sheet flow release from any edge of paved areas to single on-site well serving multiple
residents of at least 100 feet. Provide pipe conduit of sufficient length to convey storm runoff past
(or beyond) the well, as needed. In certain circumstance, storm runoff may contain petroleum
distillate. Ensure daylight release point is at least 100 feet from the on-site well. From discharge
outfall, at no point may drainage design show storm runoff release from vehicle fueling areas or
storage tank (fill) port areas within one hundred (100) feet of the single on-site well, which serves
multiple residential dwellings (mobile homes). (Rev. 1) Addressed. Applicant response: ‘The
discharge point is 103.2’ from the well. This dimension is shown on Sheet C5.’
New (with FSP)
19. Recommend ramp (CG-12) for loading space. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
20. Recommend sign that identifies loading space. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
21. Revise Max. wall height (6’ =Max.) – Ref. (retaining wall) construction standards at 18-30.7.5.a. (Rev. 1)
Addressed. Applicant response: ‘The retaining wall is a maximum of 6’ high in the managed steep slopes
overlay districts. It reaches a maximum of 8’ outside of the steep slopes overlay. A note has been added
that it is not to exceed 6’ in the steep slopes area.’
22. Ensure parking spaces are separated from entrances and streets (to prevent queuing onto streets) a min 18’
from back of entrance radius [see VDOT Road Design Manual, App. F, throat length and corner clearance].
Revise HC parking space location to meet VDOT Road Design Manual App. F, throat length and corner
clearance. Also, please ref. Final Site Plan review checklist attached to review comments. (Rev. 1)
Engineering Review Comments
Page 3 of 3
Addressed. Applicant response: ‘After receiving feedback from an Access Management Exception
Request submitted to VDOT, we have revised our parking lot such that there are separate entrances for
entering and exiting the site. The prior entrance near the HC parking space is now exit only, which will
prevent queuing onto the street.’ Engineering appreciates and accepts this statement.
23. Provide (vehicular) guardrail for the four 9’ × 18’ parking spaces adjacent to retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Not
addressed. Applicant response: ‘Rather than providing vehicular guardrail, we have revised the retaining
wall in that area so that there is a 4’ separation between the back of curb and the retaining wall.’ A 4’ space
is: not a protective barrier, or sufficient, or consistent with Engineering Final Site Plan review checklist,
which reads: ‘Guardrail with VDOT designations or equivalent shown for retaining walls next to parking or
travelways.’ Revise design. Provide guardrail.
24. Provide handrail and handrail detail for retaining wall. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
25. Label CG-12 near HC parking space. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
26. Provide VDOT IS-1 detail (inlet shaping). (Rev. 1) Addressed.
[Link: http://www.extranet.vdot.state.va.us/LocDes/Electronic%20Pubs/Standards/Section100/106_08.pdf ]
27. Revise plan title to reference SDP201800082. (Rev. 1) Addressed.
28. C8 /Note: 0.2% (detention pipe) grade must be shown by As-built survey to ensure positive drainage.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. Applicant response: ‘A note to this effect has been placed in detail 3/C8.’
As follow-up: Please copy (this) note from detail 3 to detail 6, Detention Pipe B Profile (0.2% grade).
29. C6: Tree canopy intersects loading space. Revise to ensure 14’ vertical clear space above loading space.
(Rev. 1) Addressed.
30. Label, dimension, and provide detail for proposed new landscape screening fence near west property line.
(Rev. 1) Partially addressed. As follow-up: Please refine detail 2, sheet C8, so all dimensions, including
height, bedding stone depth, etc., are readable –for the moment, print is obscure, and requires guesswork.
Please feel free to call if any questions: 434.296-5832 –x3069.
Thank you
SDP201800082-Oak Hill Convenience Store FSP_012319rev1.doc
January 22, 2019
Christopher Perez, Senior Planner
Albemarle County Community Development
401 McIntire Road
Charlottesville, VA 22902
RE: Oak Hill Convenience Store
Final Site Plan Review, SDP2018-82
Mr. Perez:
As requested, I’ve reviewed the Final Site Plan, dated 12/13/18, for the proposed construction
referenced above. In addition to the capacity assessment I’ve received for the existing septic
system, this latest site plan revision addresses all of my earlier comments/concerns, and therefore
I recommend approval of the plan.
If there are any questions or concerns, please give me a call, 434-972-4306.
Sincerely,
Alan Mazurowski
Environmental Health Supervisor
Thomas Jefferson Health District
alan.mazurowski@vdh.virginia.gov